Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. What would be the impact of rolling back a carbon price on the family budgets of low- to middle-income earners?

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. A carbon price will, of course, be paid by the large polluters in our economy for every tonne of pollution that they omit. The number of companies that will be liable under a carbon price mechanism will be less than 1,000. Importantly, every dollar raised from the large polluters in our economy will be used to assist low- and middle-income households to support jobs in the most affected industries and to tackle climate change. The assistance that the government will provide will pay particular attention to pensioners and low-income households. That is because we are a Labor government and we look after people who need help the most.

Yesterday, the shadow Treasurer confirmed that, if the coalition are elected, the coalition will abolish any assistance Labor provides to households. If they are elected, the Liberals will reach into the pockets of pensioners and low-income households and families and abolish any assistance—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar knows that she needs the call before she will be heard. I was waiting for the House to come to order.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Page 553 of the Practice states, under the old paradigm, that it was irrelevant to compare policies of the opposition with those of the government—that is under the old paradigm. For it to be, under the new paradigm, a direct answer to the question and for the minister to remain in order and continue his answer, he must come back to answering the question and not make those comparisons. It is the third paragraph of page 553, Mr Speaker.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mackellar for her point of order. It is a point of order that she did raise on a number of occasions in the last parliament. For the sake of precision, the Practice does not refer to new or old paradigms—she added that. She should not have suggested that the Practice states that, but that is okay. As she has done in the past—and it is a very good aspect of her training—she has selected parts of page 553 that support her case. I simply invite her to read the full section about content of answers, which indicates that debates, regrettably, within answers have been allowed about the opinions of the opposition or others in the House. Whilst I have concerns, I believe that I have raised those concerns and it is for the House to decide whether it wishes to take action. I am listening carefully to the minister’s response because I would have thought that he is very conscious in this second opportunity to be directly relevant to the question. I will listen carefully in that context.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I certainly am conscious of that issue. I was asked about what impact a rollback of the carbon price would have on the assistance provided to family budgets of low- and middle-income earners. As the Prime Minister made the point earlier, if we take the commitment that was made by the shadow Treasurer yesterday on behalf of the coalition to withdraw any assistance provided, if that assistance is provided in the form of tax cuts, the coalition is going to increase taxes. If that assistance is provided in the form of a pension increase, the coalition is going to cut pensions. If it is provided in the form of an improved family tax benefit, the coalition is going to cut the family tax benefit.

We all know the truth about all of this: the coalition does not care about the pressure that households are under. Why would they take the assistance away?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister should not drift too far!

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact of the matter is that, by withdrawing this assistance by potentially increasing taxes and cutting pensions, the coalition need that money to fund their subsidy scheme for large polluters. What we have is a very clear choice in politics: a carbon price paid by the large polluters, the revenue from which can be dispersed partly to support households, pensioners and low- and middle-income households in particular; or, alternatively, we have a slug to taxpayers to the worth of $30 billion, the equivalent of $720 a year for an average household—that is what their policy means—in order to pay that money as a subsidy to hand-picked large polluters. That is the contrast in politics at this point in time. It highlights the reason why the use of a market mechanism is extremely important in pricing carbon in our economy.

This is what former Prime Minister John Howard had to say at the Melbourne Press Club on 17 July 2007 in relation to this specific issue of the use of market mechanisms. He said, in relation to people who will not respect the market:

They are the real climate change deniers because they deny … rational, realistic and sustainable policy solutions.

He went on to say:

The moralising tone of utopian internationalism is also not helpful. Institutions will only work and endure if they harness national interests.

(Time expired)

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the climate change minister’s pledge of 7 March that households would receive 100 per cent of compensation.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Boothby precedent will be applied to the next person who does that. I have indicated that I will allow those who ask a question to attempt to seek leave to table material relating to their question. On two occasions in this question time there has been an attempt by members other than those who have asked questions to table material by leave, and that would give me some sympathy with the Leader of the House’s case that that is disruptive behaviour.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the House should not get too excited.